hath also freely promised to write his Laws in our Minds and put them into our Hearts that we might thereby be made meet for himself and the enjoment of himself in Glory Where lies the ground of your Inference thrt those persons that are under those absolute Promises must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation whether they Repent or Repent not Believe or Believe not Obey or Obey not May you take to your self a liberty think you to say what you please right or wrong so you may render odious the Principles of such a Diffent from you Will you make the Promises of God to be of none effect Hath he spoken it and will he not peaform it Or will he alter the thing that is gone out of his Lips that he will write his Laws in the Hearts of those whose Sins he pardoneth But say you the Absoluteness of the Promises cuts off their relation to a Covenant And this no Man can deny that understands the difference betwixt a Covenant and an Absolute Promise Reply Sir to this Opinion of yours I shall only oppose the Judgment of that Accute and Learned Divine whom I know you greatly Respect and Reverence the late worthy Dr. Owen in his Third Volume upon the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 267 268. The words he insisteth on are these Heb. 8. 10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will give my Laws into their Mind and write them upon their Hearts And I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People The thing promised in the Prophet saith the Dr. is a Covenant We render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place by a Covenant though afterward the same word is translated by a Testament A Covenant properly is a Compact or Agreement on certain terms mutually stipulated by two or more Parties As Promises are the Foundation and Rise of it as it is between God and Man so it compriseth also Precepts or Laws of Obedience which are prescribed unto Man on his part to be observed But in the Description of the Covenant here annexed there is no mention of any Condition on the part of Man or any terms of Obedience which are prescribed unto him but the whole consists in free gratuitous Promises as we shall see in the Explication of it First The Word Berith used by the Prophet doth not only signifie a Covenant or Compact properly so called but a Free Gratuitous Promise also Yea sometimes it is used for such a Free Purpose of God with respect unto other things which in their own Nature are uncapable of being obliged by any Moral Condition Such is God's Covenant with Day and Night Jer. 33. 20 25. And so he says that he made his Covenant not to Destroy the World by Water any more with every living Creature Gen. 9. 10 11. Nothing therefore can be Argued for the Necessity of Conditions to belong unto this Covenant from the Name or Term whereby it is expressed in the Prophet A Covenant properly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no Word in the whole Hebrew Language of that Precise Signification The making of this Covenant is declared by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But yet neither doth this require a mutual stipulation upon Terms and Conditions prescribed unto an entrance into Covenant For it refers unto the Sacrifices wherewith Covenants were confirmed and it is applied unto a meer Gratuitous Promise Gen. 15. 18. In that Day did God make a Covenant with Abraham saying unto thy Seed will I give this Land As unto the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies a Covenant improperly Properly it is a Testamentary Disposition and this may be without any Conditions on the part of them unto whom any thing is Bequeathed Thus far the Doctor Now say you to what Licentiousness this Doctrin leads Men is Obvious to every Eye yet this Absoluteness of the Covenant as you improperly call it is by you Asserted c. In reference whereunto I shall only mind you of one Passage more of the same Worthy Person in his forementioned Discourse upon the Hebrews P. 15. It cannot be denied saith he but that some Men may and it is justly to be feared that some Men do abuse the Doctrin of the Gospel to Countenance themselves in a vain expectation of Mercy and Pardon whilst they willingly live in a course of Sin But as this in their management is the principal means of their Ruin So in the Righteous Judgment of God it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it than of the Love of Holiness For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin and Repentance of it upon such Assured Grounds and with such Cogent Arguments as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel is fully opened and declared I shall need to say no more upon this Head and shall therefore proceed to your Fourth Argument which I find thus stated Argum. 4. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be Absolute and Unconditional having no respct nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take Comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christian's Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take Comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification Ergo Reply After this rate you may Prove Quidlibet a Quolibet For doth it follow that because the New Covenant is Absolute therefore it hath no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us Or doth it follow that because we may justly take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification that therefore the New Covenant is Conditional Pray Sir make it out For as yet you have not how this conclusion is naturally deducible from such Premises May not the Grace of God in the New Covenant be wholly Free and Absolute as it is from the very Foundation to the Top-stone thereof when yet we may justly take comfort in those Gracious Operations of the Spirit in us which are brought forth as the Fruit of the Divine Grace so revealed unto us and that as an Evidence of our Interest in him As for the Antinomian Slurs which upon this occasion you are pleased so liberally to reflect upon me in the following part of your Discourse upon this Head I must tell you that I know none that deserve that Character but such as refuse to come under the sweet and easie Yoak of Christ renouncing their Duty to God in Obedience
are told That he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of those peculiar Promises made him long before his Circumcision and that for this very purpose that he might be the Father of all them that Believe which was his Prerogative alone For none besides him had ever before their Circumcision such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises So that though it must be acknowledged that the forementioned Argument seems at first very plausible How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined there appears no such matter For as this now mentioned Argument could be no way plausible unless the following words Which he had yet being Uncircumcised were cut off from those that go before So the onely Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this That Covenant or those Promises in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is express That Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised which must of necessity be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises that had been made him long before his Circumcision and upon the account of which we are expresly told That he believed in the Lord and he counted to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Therefore that Covenant or those Promises must needs be a Covenant of Faith But then as hath been already observed it follows not that the Promises made unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations upon Condition of his and their Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith since the Apostle is express That Faith was not reckaned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised whereby he was confirmed in the assurance of that peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth He received saith he the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe In which respect it is evident that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution and in his extraordinary Circumstances that it could not be to any of his natural Progeny in its ordinary use You tell me indeed that this was Bellarmine's Invention and that Dr. Ames hath fully confuted it Unto which you add That for me to restrain the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so that neither Isaac the Type of Christ nor Jacob a Prince with God who were by name enrolled in that great Charter should have any right to the Seal of it is such a Conceit as amazes an Intelligent Reader But Sir I pray consider can you justly or truly say that Isaac or Jaâ—…ob either are ever in Scripture called the Fathers of all them that Believe as Abraham was Or was it possible for them so to be since this was Abraham's peculiar Prerogative to be so entituled And doth the Apostle expresly tell you of Abraham That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which therefore could be the Priviledge of none else Indeed there is nothing that can be more evident than this For as it is absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as 't is here said of Abraham since many of them were never partakers of that Saving Grace whether before or after So it is equally absurd to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto any that received it as it was to Abraham since neither Isaac nor Jacob nor any besides were ever or could ever be so dignified as Abraham was And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to the rest that were under it that it was rather unto them a token of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell the Jews in their time Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10 24. Gal. 5. 2 3. which yet it had not been had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom And so much by way of Answer to your second Argument Your third follows Argum. 3. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself to Abraham and his Seed to be their God and to give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Works Reply Sir you are pleased to tell me that this is so plain and so clear that none can doubt or deny it that understands the nature of the two Covenants But can you indeed upon second thoughts justly affirm that God doth not in the Covenant of Works since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest How comes it then to pass that in the Sinai Covenant which I have already proved could be no other than a Covenant of Works and which you your self have acknowledged to be materially such the Lord doth expresly tell that People in the Wilderness Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stones which the Apostle doth yet nevertheless expresly call A ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. And why but because it required perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercy how Glorious or Comfortable soever in it self considered therein promised which was impossible to be performed by Man in his lapsed state Gal. 3. 10 11 12. Rom. 3. 20. So that it is too apparent to be justly denied but that God doth indeed in the Covenant of Works make over himself to
gives the appellation of a Covenant much less of the First or Old Covenant to that Covenant Transaction So that the Silence of the Scripture as to this express term of the Old Covenant in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision is no just Argument that therefore it is not So. And if no other reason can be assigned why the Sinai Covenant is called in Scripture the Frst or Old Covenant but because of its Affinity with that made with our first Parent Since it was not the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time an express Covenant having been made with Abraham and with Noah also long before why may not the Covenant of Circumcision also pass under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant because of its Affinity with that at Sinai the same mercies being promised and the same duties commanded in the one that were in the other which hath expresly the title of the First or Old Covenant given to it in the Scripture Argum. 2. The Law or the Old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the hand of a humane Mediatour a Mediatour that was a meer Man But this Covenant established with Abraham was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour Therefore this Covenant was not the Law or the Old Covenant Reply By the same Rule and for the same Reason you may as well deny that the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent was the Old or the first Covenant because it was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour as the Sinai Covenant was Argum. 3. The Law or Old Covenant was given 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham But this Covenant entred with Abraham was not entred 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with him Therefore this Covenant cannot be the Law or Old Covenant The Major say you is evident from Gal. 3. 17. The Minor from the History of God's Covenant transactions with Abraham Reply Though the Covenant of Works which was given by Moses at Mount Sinai was 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham Gen. 12. Yet it follows not that there was therefore no other Edition thereof ever extant in the World you your self cannot but acknowledg that it was first made with Adam in innocency And if so why there might not be another Edition thereof besides that given at Sinai Neither the Scripture by you now mentioned nor any other says any thing to the contrary Argum. 4. God himself expresly denies â—…hat this Covenant established with Abraham was the Old Covenant Therefore c. That God expresly denies the Covenant established with Abraham to be the Old Covenant is evident Deut. â—… 2 3. Where saith Moses speaking by the Spirit of God The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Now that under â—…his term Fathers we must necessarily include Abraham cannot be denied whence it is evident that the Covenant made in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was not made with Abraham Reply Either the Covenant which Moses here speaks of which God made with Israel in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Grace that is a Gospel Covenant as Mr. Flavell Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many others affirm it was or a Covenant of Works If it was a Gospel Covenant How will you resolve the Point when Moses tells you here expressly That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Will you say or can it be immagined that God never made any Gospel Covenant with Abraham Isaac or Jacob or the rest of the Fathers How then were they Saved If it was a Covenant of Works as you seem to grant it was the same difficulty occures on the other hand For can you say that God never made any Covenant of Works with Abraham and the rest of the Fathers Was there not a Covenant of Works made with our first Father and in him with all his Posterity Were not Abraham Isaac and Jacob children of wrath by nature as well as others and consequently then under the First or Old Covenant Wherefore when Moses says That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers speaking of the Sinai Covenant it cannot be understood Absolutely as if therefore they had never been under the Old Covenant for it is plain that they had as being of Adam's Posterity And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Covenant at Mount Sinai were first drawn in the establishment of the Covenant of Circumcision There was the first draught thereof and then God first began to deal with even Abraham himself in order to the establishment of that Covenant he intended afterward in a more formal express manner to accomplish though it was not as yet Compleated So that Moses might justly enough say speaking of the Sinai Covenant The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers that is in the same manner and Circumstances as it is now made with us The Lord never appeared till now with such dreadful Majesty with such Thundrings Blackness Darkness and Tempect God never discovered himself till now with the Sound of a Trumpet and the Voice of Words which voice they that heard entreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more It cannot be denied but that God had before made the same Covenant of Works with them in Adam for the Substance thereof And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Sinai Covenant it self had been drawn in the Covenant of Circumcision But it was not then Compleated there were many Ceremonies Statutes and Judgments to be added thereunto which the Fathers knew nothing of The same Covenant for the Substance thereof had been before made with them though not in the same manner and with such circumstances as it had been now Performed So that this Scripture makes nothing to your purpose at all No more doth that which follows when you tell us That that which may yet further confirm us is this That the Lord himself expresly distinguisheth that Covenant made with Abraham from that Covenant made at Sinai Deut. 29. 1. These are the Words of the Covenant which the Lord Commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. But how doth it appear by this that the Lord himself distinguisheth the Covenant made with Abraham from that made with Abraham from that made at Mount Sinai Why yes saith Mr. Whiston because the Covenant here spoken of wich God made with Israel in the Land of Moab is Abraham's Covenant So saith he it is expresly declared vers 13. Now this Covenant is expresly declared to be another Covenant besides that made in Horeb vers 1. And therefore they could not be one and the same Covenant But then Mr. Whiston should have
considered that a Covenant may be one and the same Covenant for substance though often repeated And that thus stood the Case in respect of the Three formentioned Covenants that at Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that with Abraham is evident For first if you compare Deut. 29. vers 2 3 9. with Exod. 19. 4 5. you will find that this in the Land of Moab exactly agrees with the Sinai Covenant the Terms being exactly the same as well as also the Promises in both Covenants So that the Sense of Deut. 29. 1. can be no other than this These are the Words that is these are the Terms or Conditions upon which God hath made that is Renewed Covenant with you The Covenant at Horeb and this in the Land of Moab was but one in Substance though various in respect of the time or manner of Administration And indeed they were both the same for Substance with that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee So it was in the Sinai Covenant Ezod 19. 4 5. You have seen saith God what I did unto the Egyptians and how I bore you on Eagles Wings and brought you unto my self Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be unto me a peculiar Treasure above all People So Deut. 29. 2 3 4 c. You have seen all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants and I have led you forty years in the Wilderness that ye might know that I am the Lord your God Vers. 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do You stand this day all of you before the Lord your God that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God Vers. 12. That he may establish thee to day for a People unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob Vers. 13. So that here is no difference at all between the Covenant made with Abraham and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai and this with the same People in the Land of Moab also For we cannot but see that for Substance they do all of them exactly agree onely that at Mount Sinai was made with Israel at their first entrance into the Wilderness that in the Land of Moab about forty years after when they were just ready to enter Canaan For since the greatest part of the Generation were then dead with whom the Covenant was first made at Sinai God thought fit to renew it with their Successors in the Land of Moab additional unto or beside that Covenant Transaction that had passed between him and their Fathers at Sinai But say you it may be observed that the Sameness of some particular Good promised and Duties commanded in this Covenant established with Abraham and that made at Mount Sinai cannot justly be interpreted a Revelation from God that the Covenants are one and the same There may be observed say you an Indentity or Sameness both of Good promised and Duties commanded in the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace in sundry particulars and yet the Covenants are not only distinct but of quite different Natures and Tenours And who doubts say I but there may be observed an Indentity or Sameness of the Good promised in the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace and yet both these Covenants are not only distinct but of quite different Natures and Tenours the one being Absolute the other Conditional The one requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of enjoying the Good therein contained The other promising to work that in us which before was required of us But it is evident that the forementioned Covenants did all of them exactly agree and that both in respect of the Good promised and Duties commanded also For they did all of them require Perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein promised which may be justly interpreted as a Revelation from God that they are for the Substance of them one and the same there being no difference at all between them onely in the time and manner of their Administration And then where lies the ground of your Confidence when you say What can possibly be more plain Who can with any pretence of Divine Revelation question whether that Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. be the Old Covenant or the same with that made at Sinai when the Lord himself denies that that Covenant made at Mount Sinai was made with Abraham but evidently and in plain words distinguishes the one from the other These are your groundless Triumphs And say you that which may yet further confirm us is that the Scriptures every where speak of the Covenant made with Abraham in the Singular Number and no where give the least Intimation that there were two Covenants the one of which can possibly be supposed to be the Covenant of Grace and the other the Old Covenant These Arguments say you are so plain that nothing can be rationally Reply'd No! say I doth not the Apostle plainly tell you that there were Two Covenants the one the Covenant of Grace the other the Old Covenant and that upon this very occasion and in reference to Abraham himself Gal. 4. 22. c. For it is written saith he that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bondmaid the other by a Freewoman But he who was of the Bondwoman was born after the Flesh but he of the Freewoman was by Promise Which things are an Allegory For these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage the other answereth to Jerusalem that is above and is free which is the Mother of us all Now I pray Sir consider Doth not the Apostle here plainly tell you that there were two Covenants the one a Legal Bondage Covenant the other a Covenant of Gospel Liberty and Freedom the one a Covenant of Works the other of Grace under the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah Ishmael and Isaac And was this Prophetical Instance brought forth in Abraham's Family shewing the Nature and Method of God's future Dispensations towards his Off-spring without any respect unto Abraham himself Had he not two Sons the one by a Bond-maid the other by a Free-woman And did not this serve to represent unto him the different Nature of the two Covenants that had been before made with Himself as well as of the two fold Covenant God intended to make with his Seed after him That God intended to make a two fold Covenant with his Seed after him is evident for what else is the meaning of the two Covenants the Apostle here speaks of the one from Mount Sinai